Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org>]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> > Guess what else?  You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> > making documents less available than they previously were.
> 
> So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
> information as well?
> You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?

Two issues here:
1) Daniel was attempting a 'remove' operation, you are describing an
'add'.  The operations do the exact opposite in terms of information
dissemination.

2) If someone writes a good guide to using Arch with the Linux kernel,
or subversion, I don't have an objection to putting it into
Documentation.

Daniel disagrees with the content of the speech in
Documentation/BK-usage, based on his ideology.  And he attempted to
restrict the dissemination of that speech.  What is the definition
of censorship again?

People may think I'm just pissed because it's my doc he wanted to
remove, but that's only partially true.  I see this as a clear cut
case of Daniel's ideology pushing him to attempt to restrict speech.
That is anti-freedom, no matter how you look at it, regardless of
whether we are talking about BitKeeper or anything else.

Maybe we should have warning labels on software, indicating that
a product does not conform completely to some idealist notion of
free software.

	Jeff